The spectacle of 400,000 civilians fleeing north from southern Lebanon again reveals the disproportionate nature of Israel's response to Hizbullah's renewed rocket attacks on its northern settlements. These are deplorable and lethal, but in no way do they justify a response which punishes a whole population and extends war to Beirut. No precise objectives have been laid down for these destructive operations which target so many civilians in violation of the normal rules of war.
It is essential that the status quo ante between the Israelis and Hizbullah be restored. Based on an agreement brokered by the United States in 1993, after another massive Israeli operation in southern Lebanon, it "provided that neither side should attack each other's civilians; but it was based on an understanding that military exchanges between these opposing forces inside the Israeli security zone were to be expected, since it is on Lebanese land under Israeli occupation. In a complex and fraught regional security picture this occupation is one of the principal sources of conflict, which can be resolved only by Israeli withdrawal.
The scale of the operation that has sent so many people into flight must be seen in several contexts, including that of the effective Syrian occupation of Lebanon, Iranian influence on the Hizbullah, and the impasse in peace negotiations between Israel and Syria in the lead up to the Israeli elections on May 29th. Mr Shimon Peres has a very strong electoral motive to take such action at this stage of the campaign, irrespective of its gravely disproportionate character. It rebuts suggestions that he or his party is soft on security. He seems determined to avoid the use of ground troops in southern Lebanon, but he must be aware that if the Hizbullah attacks continue after the artillery and air bombardments public sentiment could turn sharply against him. He may also be trying to send a message to President Assad of Syria that it would be prudent to rein in Hizbullah to encourage victory for Labour in the elections, on the assumption that this is most likely to facilitate a settlement. Against that, there is the fact that the operation may rather alienate both the Syrians and the Lebanese, even if it helps Mr Peres to win the elections.
The unfortunate people of southern Lebanon have, once again, become pawns in a much wider strategic game. Compared with 1993, international reaction has, been muted. Another election, in the US, has helped to censure this again, much more thought should be given in Washington to the possibility that endorsing Israel's actions could do more harm than good with other regional partners. Already Mr Yasser Arafat's credibility has been affected by similar collective punishments in the West Bank and Gaza. The European Union has recently adopted a higher and more constructive profile in the region, but so far its response to this operation has been a case study in foreign policy disarray. Yesterday the French foreign minister, Mr Herve de Charette, was attempting to mediate between some of the parties, without discernible reference to the EU Troika led by the Italian presidency, along with Spain and Ireland, while the British defence secretary, Mr, Michael Portillo, cheered on the Israelis. A much more focused response is required if a common foreign and security policy is to be created by the EU.